Worst General of All Time

by **Cubster** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:44 am

Haig was simply a product of his time and if he failed to respond to the increasingly industrial nature of war quickly enough, that was an error common to most commanders of the time. The reason the Central Powers began developing stalemate-breaking tactics was because they had to. Far from being content to sit on captured territory, they in fact knew that the attrition tactics employed by the Allied powers were winning the war and were finding ever more desperate measures to counter it. Their famous Stormtroopers enjoyed local successes, yet ensured that their best soldiers were killed first and it was proved to be unsustainable in the long term during that war.It is telling that military commentators now and then fail to lay as much blame at Haig's door as civilians do, because they understand that sometimes in war there is no good solution to problems. The hindsight that allows us a God's view of circumstances then was not available at the time. 2 million casualties were suffered because we were in a World War, a very different type of all-out warfare from that experienced the century before, against powers who kept fighting long after the result was no longer in doubt. Wellington suffered high casualty rates at many of his battles.I don't think Haig was any better or worse than most of his contemporaries.

by **Biggus Dickus** » Mon May 30, 2011 8:37 am

zedeyejoe said:

My views on Haig, product of his nation. French had similar problems. Germans tried various systems and indeed came up with Storm Troops which were highly effective.But the plus point for Haig is that he commanded the British army on to victory, which I suggest is a sign of success. Stalin, another who achieved victory with awful losses.

Zed, titus and cubster.....somewhere in here is my withering response!Yes that is true Stalin, did something a little different but the result was much the same unacceptable loses, but then it's only unacceptable if the men and the people get off their derrieres and say so...if we don't and the governments of this world are allowed to get away with treating us like sheep, the result is a lot of us end up with the title deeds to a nice corner of a foriegn field!As for WW1, no one comes out smelling of roses the whole industrialised slaughter was way beyond tactical thinking. The fields of Flanders were turned into an abbattoir for man kind, it's all too terrible for words. Perhaps some of us look to blame someone for that when there are many reasons and many to blame...For me haig is just one of the many, he certainly "did for" the average Tommy.The war ended in what seems to be an allied victory. There are many and complicated reasons for this "victory", it's not just "a decided on the battle field victory" So i don't think you can argue he won because he was on the winning side. (wasn't he relieved of command by the end?)...that's a stretch.....and over simplification.I always find it curious that an Armistice was signed.......i believe and forgive me if i'm wrong that that means "a ceasation of hostilities". it says to me everyone had enough and just agreed to stop fighting. what happened next, well that's a story for another time. I certainly wouldn't have climbed over the top on his say so, the man was clearly insane.....good luck to those of you that would have done! I guess that's the true test really of any commander whether his men would willing follow him to the end.............I just don't think they were very willing then........they certainly wouldn't do it now. Well guys it's been an interesting exchange of views....for a otherwise dull monday. you know my two nominations........right or wrong at least i'm not on the fence!....not that there is anything wrong with sitting on the fence.......but a cumfy chair is better ! Wink

i really must get back to my romans now!!

by **johnm** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:08 am

My vote goes to Adolf Hitler, if he had given his Generals a free hand things would have been different in 1945 Wink

by **grecian1959** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:10 am

Me-have you ever seen worse die rolls Yell

sweeping manoeuvres destroyed with relentless 1's n 2's makes me weep n paint some more .SAUVE QUI PEUT

by **zedeyejoe** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:11 am

(Adolf Hitler)Well he was a corporal. Haig lasted until the end of the war

Haig's predecessor Sir John French was invited to give the Cabinet a"second opinion" of Haig's strategy, although in the event he had fewpositive suggestions to make and seemed to the Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey to be full of "hatred, envy and malice". The Cabinet Minister Jan Christiaan Smuts was sent to France to take discreet soundings among the Army Commanders to see whether any of them were willing to replace Haig - none of themwere. Lloyd George was later to be accused (in the famous Maurice Debate in the House of Commons) of hoarding troops in the UK at this time tomake it harder for Haig to launch offensives, thus allegedlycontributing to the debacle of March 1918.

by **Titus Flavius** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:18 am

Biggus, you stand accused of three counts of heresy. Heresy by thought, heresy by deed, heresy by word and heresy by inaction...four counts. Confess, or we will poke you with the soft cushions! Come on, so many history buffs, we need a real military loser. The man who was able to turn any numerical or strategic advantage he had into a liability...a man so incompetent he was able to snatch defeat from the very jaws of certain victory. A man whose name would live in infamy for generations to come. The man for the moment.

by **DOGGED** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:27 am

Looks like this guy was in the run for this competition:http://www.civilwar.org/educat.....illow.html Gideon Pillow, so good a general that U.S. Grant, talking with a former rebel commander which had surrendered, stated that, in case G. Pillow became a prisoner, he would rather free such a man so he could go on commanding southern troops.

by **Titus Flavius** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:44 am

That's more like it! I love the fact that he was found hiding behind a tree after Stones River!No-one's mentioned William Prince of Orange yet, but if memory serves we've done that dance before...

by **Cubster** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:50 am

Chelmsford needs an honourable mention here, not so much because he was incompetent, but rather because he made a string of very bad decisions then blamed it on some dead blokes (that he had been instrumental in ordering to their deaths) and scuttled off under Queen Victoria's petticoats when questions started to be asked in Parliament.

by **Biggus Dickus** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:07 am

Titus Flavius said:

Biggus, you stand accused of three counts of heresy. Heresy by thought, heresy by deed, heresy by word and heresy by inaction…four counts. Confess, or we will poke you with the soft cushions! Come on, so many history buffs, we need a real military loser. The man who was able to turn any numerical or strategic advantage he had into a liability…a man so incompetent he was able to snatch defeat from the very jaws of certain victory. A man whose name would live in infamy for generations to come. The man for the moment.

Titus say what you like about me….I'm likely guilty as charged, But i won't have a word said against General Arnold J Rimmer, his campaign of using wax soldiers has gone down in military history…..as maybe not the best idea…………..Ghandi give me 10…….now that's funny! Laugh

No, Not the soft cushions! Jeez! I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition!!

Who is online